the whole “the climate crisis isn’t the fault of people” is an excuse for the religious and rich and stupid to continue with business as usual until the environment collapses and we are all dead

reasoning with them is like trying to de-program a cult member (the religious), get a drug addict to give up drugs (the rich and their avarice), or teach a windows user to learn linux (the stupid and learning new things that make sense)

the intelligent people need to stop trying to reason with these three tar pit groups and force them to adhere to our will

but the reality is that this should have happened 50 to 100 years ago and it’s probably too late. we’re sort of of at the “is it better to be in the blast zne or slightly outside the blast zne” phase of environmental collapse. the problem is mostly religion, which has doomed us.

Oh no! The history that we could have all have enjoyed in the future (if we weren’t all about to die due to environmental collapse) has been slightly marred!

I feel like we should get to know each other over coffee sometime…

Wait…

Everyone morning I wake up and think “don’t think about dicks, don’t think about dicks, don’t think about dicks…”

YOU MEAN EVERYONE ISN’T DOING THIS???

I don’t know what this post means… but I want to learn.

Are you Vegan and moved to Europe and now do CrossFit?

That actually sounds like fun.

Especially the linux part.

Did you flee from a country that was awful and move to somewhere in Europe?

There’s no reason to run Windows unless there’s specific software that won’t run in a virtual highly contained environment of Windows within Linux.

Friends don’t let friends use windows.

I have down-voted this because in a worst case scenario, they should move to a less appealing version of Linux, like Arch

(waiting for my down-votes)

There needs to be a way to have an inclusive corporate culture that celebrates cultures and backgrounds but also allows brutal honesty about products without people being afraid of accidentally offending others or being too indifferent to the corporation’s success to speak up.

A lot of it probably relates to how often people are fired and how short tenures are with companies. If you have a short tenure with a company or are expecting to, does it matter if Company A does well instead of Company B or Company C? It probably doesn’t, and with social media capturing one wrong offensive faux paus for eternity (by which I mean until the planet becomes uninhabitable 300 years from now), workers have every incentive to let disasters like this go to market.

I am judging Microsoft employees but likely would have said nothing if I were there too. With all the layoffs in tech, why risk it to say something controversial? Even my initial post on this got down-voted into the depths of an abyss just for mentioning that men and women see pornography in different ways sometimes, which should hardly be controversial. I don’t know whether the votes were from men or women, but actually I imagine more women than men down-voted it, and even this guess will probably lead to additional down-votes.

I dislike people like Elon Musk for his cruelty towards transgender people (despite his admirable intelligence), and I dislike Donald Trump for his cruelty towards those who are different in any way, but I also feel like people should be able to have discussions about actual uncomfortable subjects without it being automatically offensive. The fact I was so heavily down-voted immediately tends to illustrate my point.

The point of the first two sentences is that because there is a large gender divide on whether porn is acceptable, a lot of times men and women don’t discuss porn because the subject will lead to conflict. This isn’t true of all members of both genders. Since corporations often have a mix of genders, bringing up the topic of porn and how a feature could alienate porn viewers would be an uncomfortable topic that would be easier to avoid because men and women find the topic uncomfortable often for different reasons. In Microsoft’s case, it seems like no one at Microsoft brought up how male porn watchers might not like AI watching their pornhub history and recording it to a file, despite it seeming like it would be an obvious concern to any male at Microsoft who watches porn, and likely many do. These means their corporate culture is so selfish on their own career protection and focused on not offending others that they let a really bad feature that many hate go to market instead of talking openly how this would be a disaster out of fear that it could cause workplace conflict.

So instead of saving millions of dollars in costs and damage to the brand, everyone at Microsoft aware of this problem just said nothing. That’s a terrible corporate culture. If a product isn’t going to work, even uncomfortable discussions should be had if it saves millions.

My point overall was that it’s shocking this made it into the product. It’s such a bad idea for a feature on multiple levels, that it seems like employees did not openly talk about this.

My other point was that if Microsoft employees didn’t drop the ball, then this feature may have been forced into the project by a government order of some kind, which can and does happen in closed source software. Although hidden backdoors are often secret, the government could equally compel a large unlocked window at the front be added as well.

people hated that post too 😭

lol, you’re the only one who liked my post apparently. everyone else hates it!

So true!

Most male computer uses watch porn and would not want an AI to log that. Many women find porn sickening and don’t understand it and will never understand male urges that result in watching it. The fact that this got into a finished product tells you a lot about Microsoft’s corporate culture.

No one working there really cares about the company enough to bring up uncomfortable issues, they are all there just to get their paycheck and actual outcomes be damned. The culture their must be toxic for this product to have been put into a product enabled by default.

If this was a top-down decision and there was no input by others into it, it leads to questions over whether this feature was forced to be included by the government, which can easily require corporations to do anything and then issue gag orders and whether it was some sort of test to see how much intrusive spying bullshit that regular consumers will tolerate now. If this was a feature that was forced into the product, the plan may have been to turn it off by default after negative feedback, but then just keep it in the program for when governments want to turn it on. Governments may have realized it in any capacity such a terrible feature would result in outrage and may have thought this was the path of least resistance, like saying “Would you like to eat a bowl of shit? No, okay, we’ll just give you these brussel sprouts”

this exactly describes the truth of what is going on

This data can still be stored by the government.

In fact, google may be being told by the government to tell people that this data isn’t being stored so people will be less concerned about it and not think it’s being collected since many people know google collects data but may be naive as to the possibility that google is lying about the data being completely erased.

The easiest way to get rid of a headache is to make some toast, then spread peanut butter on one slice and mayonnaise on the other, smash them together and eat it and as you are chewing just slam your head into the toaster as hard as possible.

I don’t know if I like linux now :-(

I deleted the comment because I was afraid of ChatGPT reading it and becoming too intelligent.

deleted by creator

She probably would not have denied it had the prosecutors had a 3-7 minute conversation with Trump’s defense and had determined they couldn’t have come to an agreement. Prosecutorial arrogance allowed them to just ignore procedure and they figured they could get away with it.

Also, if the prosecutors have such good evidence, maybe instead of worrying so much about what Trump is speechifying on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, they could just prosecute him? Are they really afraid that a jury is so stupid that they are going to be persuaded by Trump ranting tweets or Xes or whatever they are called now on that enshitified platform? Either they have weak evidence or this is just a power play to try to control Trump’s ability to say what he wants (and ignore the court rules) and they thought they could get away with it.